RV-12 Price vs. other RV Choices

[Jack Tyler]

I realize this is like talking about cheese and chalk, in that the RV-12 and RV-9A might seem similar to an outside observer but otherwise offer very different performance envelopes and some differing ownership consequences. But I'd like to zoom in on the value equation for buying & building a -12 kit. I know some of you -12 owners have owned other RVs, and even if you haven't you might have wrestled with this same issue and will have some helpful insights.

When I look at Dave's post for his very low time, almost new 9A in the Want Ads - http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=67556 - I'm struck by how much higher in price the -12 kit is, after which I must add my own labor and also surrender a period of not being able to fly. Yes, larger fuel burns and I can't do the bulk of the maintenance on a completed 9A like I could a -12...but there are also performance benefits, especially if some cross-country flying is part of the plan. And presumably, following Vans advice on how to approach the purchase of a used RV will be sufficient to know the plane was well assembled.

For a guy with a medical (and an IR), how does he reconcile spending the $75K+ that's being mentioned by most of you who are building/have built -12's? How do you look at this apparent disparity (aside from claiming that the joy of building is worth paying $15K more for the aircraft)?

Again, many thanks for the patience you folks have been showing me while I try to learn the ropes. This forum sure has been helpful.

Jack

 

[pierre smith]

Perfectly worded, Jack...

....and a question many on here have pondered, including me. The irony for some, including the seller of the -9A in question, is that even tho' it's $15K cheaper...he can't use it because of medical reasons, so what other choices are there?....the -12 is one of them...

Best,

 

[RV10Man]

I agree whole heartedly with both of you. But, if you do the math, I would think he could at least get his cost of materials out of it. Someone could have a very nice, already built, airplane at no cost whatsoever for labor. I think I can say, without a doubt, he has more than 60K in it.

My brother finished his -9A in 2005, with a runout engine, pretty much VFR, a/p, nothing really special about it, he's got 65K in his. It is painted but he got a really cheap paint job ($2800.00 & it looks it).

Marshall Alexander

 

[Mich48041]

Maintenance on experimental

I can't do the bulk of the maintenance on a completed 9A like I could a -12..

Not true. Anyone can maintain, modify, or work on an experimental aircraft. The requirement is that the annual inspection be conducted by an A&P or a person holding a repairman's certificate. As for fuel burns, if the RV-9 is throttled back to RV-12 speeds, it will not burn as much more fuel as you might expect. The RV-9 is a very nice airplane and would have been my choice if I could fly it without a medical. The RV-9 is the favorite of Van's employees for cross country trips. There are many factors to consider when purchasing an airplane. A buyer needs to weigh the pros and cons and decide what is best for himself.
Joe

 

[lucien]

For a guy with a medical (and an IR), how does he reconcile spending the $75K+ that's being mentioned by most of you who are building/have built -12's? How do you look at this apparent disparity (aside from claiming that the joy of building is worth paying $15K more for the aircraft)?

Again, many thanks for the patience you folks have been showing me while I try to learn the ropes. This forum sure has been helpful.

Jack

This question has gone around in my mind too as I've researched the RV12.

So I'd ask you guys too - could it be a higher level of prefabrication and ease of building? I've seen a lot of RV 6/7/9's and even a 10 under construction over the years by flying friends and they're a big job to build (that's probably putting it mildly).

But from what I've seen of the RV12, because it's an ELSA kit and has to be built "just so", there seems to be little (if any?) room for builder fabrication, remaking and redesigning things, etc. Also, it sounds like one of the best planned and designed kits Vans has ever done (not that the other models aren't tough acts to follow, mind you) in order to insure the builder is able to comply with all the construction methods easily and correctly.

That's what seems to be the case with the RV12 kit to me, would you guys agree? Surely that adds value to the kit as well as increases the cost of producing it, which is probably why it's nearly at parity with the other models at least in terms of purchase price?

From what I've seen so far (which is unfortunately not very much yet), the 12 kit looks like a very good value, especially considering the overall cost of the plane you end up with when you're done. I.e. a pre-built LSA at the quality level of the 12 for only 80K just doesn't exist on the market.....

What do you guys think?

LS

 

[DonFromTX]

You said it, cheese and chalk comparisons. If I were not 73 years old and with medical conditions that would never allow me to pass a medical, I probably would buy that mentioned RV9a instead. I was feeling like maybe I was making a huge mistake buying a 12 kit at my age, but to my surprise it appears most of us are in my age group. The appeal is that it IS an LSA and we can expect to fly it for some years yet before we have to hang it all up. When I am done with mine, I am even considering building an RV 10 and just flying it with a pilot who has a medical exam onboard whenever I fly. (you dream a lot when waiting for your kit to arrive.)

 

[LittleJoeA]

Jack,

I can only look to my reasons for choosing the RV-12 over others. I spent a week at Oshkosh last year looking at Factory LSA's and homebuilts. After talking to many folks, including Larry, I choose the RV-12. The factory test flight sealed the deal.

1. I was looking for a project that I can finish in a couple of years, not 8 or 10 years. I wanted the accomplishment of building my own airplane.

2. I needed the Light Sport for medical reasons.

3. Reasonable cost with no hidden costs. Most factory built airplanes were more than twice the cost of the RV-12. The fact that everything is included in the kit is highly desirable for me.

4. A desirable product when finished. Many of the factory airplanes were too close to being an ultralight for me.

5. I wanted a metal airplane.

I'm about 5% into the project and delighted with the quality of the parts and the project. This forum is a great help.

 

[DonFromTX]

As Joe pointed out, IF you are needing an LSA, and you want to build it yourself, the choices narrow down to an RV 12 in a hurry, no other kit even seems to come close when you take ease of building and quality when you are done. To me the numbers of 720 empty and 1320 gross sealed the deal after sweetening the deal with a decent cruise with an autopilot and glass cockpit.

 

[Mich48041]

Well said

Lucien,
I agree with everything you said. And I would add that the initial RV-12 bugs, that us early builder had to deal with, have been addressed. New builders will have it easier and have the latest avionics.
Joe

 

[rgmwa]

Reasons to build an RV-12

If the -12 hadn't been available, I would have built a -9 or a -7. Both still really appeal to me, but some of the advantages I saw for the -12 were:

1. Lower build cost. $90-100k AUD compared to about $130-150k AUD for an RV-9 or -7 (assuming new Lycoming).

2. Complete kit. No need to decide on engine options, avionics, props, etc and then figure out how to install/wire/etc. Sure, this would be limiting for many builders, but as a first-timer, I like it. Even comes with a nice glass panel as part of the kit, plus lighting, autopilot and wheel pants options.

3. Should hold re-sale value well if built as an E-LSA, with Van's name on the data plate, indicating a consistent product. This remains to be seen.

4. Ability to perfom annual inspections on the -12, and potentially reduce maintenance costs.

5. Future-proofing. If I develop medical problems that would prevent me flying a -9 or a -7, I can probably still fly a -12 as a sport pilot.

6. Fuel options - mogas or avgas, with lower cost of mogas a significant bonus. However, transport and handling of mogas will be less convenient than pulling up to an avgas bowser on the field.

7. Reduced construction time, roughly half that of a -9 or -7.

8. Good performance. Comparable to C152/172, although certainly slower than Van's other kits. But no big deal for the kind of flying I'm contemplating - mainly local with a occasional longer flights.

9. Removable wings. Not a major factor, but will make transportation and storage (maybe) easier

10. Quality of the kit. Good as the 9 and 7 kits undoubtedly are, the 12 kit and documentation is probably even better.

11. Although it might be the lightweight of the family, it's still an RV and by all accounts flies like one.

 

[David-aviator]

You said it, cheese and chalk comparisons. If I were not 73 years old and with medical conditions that would never allow me to pass a medical, I probably would buy that mentioned RV9a instead. I was feeling like maybe I was making a huge mistake buying a 12 kit at my age, but to my surprise it appears most of us are in my age group. The appeal is that it IS an LSA and we can expect to fly it for some years yet before we have to hang it all up. When I am done with mine, I am even considering building an RV 10 and just flying it with a pilot who has a medical exam onboard whenever I fly. (you dream a lot when waiting for your kit to arrive.)

Don, you are an inspiration. I've been wondering if I have the energy to build another airplane, if you do, so do I. (age 72 in a couple weeks)

Anyone interested in a work horse RV-7A that flys regularly, send an inquery to

[email protected].

I will provide all there is to know about the airplane and make you a good deal.

We only live once and I've mulling over the RV-12 for a year....it is the only way to go LSA.

 

[DonFromTX]

We will try not to hold your youth against you, we older ones will guide you along.

 

[bhassel]

Wow - what an appropriate topic! I've been struggling with that question for awhile.

I think the firewall aft part of the kit is almost a wash in cost. I'd probably put the same panel in the 9 (dual screen SkyView's or MGL's) that will be coming for the 12 soon so that's basically a wash. FWF would probably be a little more in the 9 IF I went new...

I dream of long cross countries, back east to visit family and friends, the Bahama's, Alaska...but the reality is I'm a low time pilot and my wife would like to get her license.

That $19.95 special I bought on the infommercial isn't working...I'm getting older...

Of course as long as its taking me I might be lucky to go with the LSA...

Bob

 

[DonFromTX]

The quick construction was a major player in my game of choosing too. At my age waiting for the grim reaper, heck I don't even buy green banannas any more. Do you realize some have put the 12 to flying in less than 6 months?

 

[Jack Tyler]

Thanks for the spread of comments, everyone...

All useful grist for the mill. A couple of follow-ups related to some of the comments, based on us having a chance to see, crawl around in and (for me) fly the -12 at Sebring:
-- Mitch Lock made the point that the -12's plans are substantially different than any of the other models. He had the full build manual there, which was very instructive to look through. Think: Erector Set. Not quite but almost 'insert Tab A into Slot B'. Altho' Bruce Swayze assures me this will change, I'm looking at building as a means to an end; I don't think I'm a hobby-builder. So completing a kit sooner - provided it's for the right plane - is very much a good thing. The plans certainly reinforce that desire.
-- The wx conditions at Sebring Saturday pretty much sucked. (I posted a summary of the day in the Sebring thread). Flying conditions for these little LSA's were were quite unfriendly, which made them very, very good for a demo ride. Tower's call on both takeoff and landing was a direct 90 degree crosswind of 14G20. These short-coupled light-weight LSA's, with their relatively large tail feathers, were unintentionally showing some interesting aerobatic maneuvers as the demo flights came & went. The -12 handled it all, as seen on the ground and in the cockpit, very well indeed.
-- There were a few other pleasing choices available, if one was looking for a metal low-wing, that seemed very appealing and came pre-built as S-LSA's or in kits as E-AB's. Zenith's 650XL and Rans S-19 both offered the same handsome ramp appearance the -12 did. Peripheral impressions I've formed suggest there is nothing like the same sales activity with these as with the -12, there obviously is nothing even close to equivalent to this forum for those builders, and of course the plans put things into a whole different dimension.

Two last thoughts: First, along with a fit between one's mission(s) and the a/c, be sure the -12 feels right for you. These planes are small. 'Snug' and 'Intimate' are both terms that seem to fit. The Rotax gave a slight, resonant 'thrummmming', syncopated noise that Mitch described as normal (@5200-5300 rpm) and to me was more noticeable than the db level of the engine (which I found a bit less than the AA-5 with an O-320 I flew last week). It is of course lighter and so moves around more than the low end of the GA Part 23 class planes we've all flown. The seating arrangement needs to be comfy because it is what it is. There were lots of other new 'sensation' type impressions I had that were distinct to being in an LSA (including 'Geez, I've never seen a GA engine start that fast!). I think it's important these things are all OK for one because they in part define the experience one has.

Second - and apologies to you pioneers who've already built - the new panel is going to be even better. I found using the 7" Dynon display from the right seat was difficult from some sun angles (important to me because we both fly). Having a bigger display will help that marginally, plus I think the larger numbers, icons & symbology of the bigger display simply make everything a bit more readable. Vans has not yet settled on the optional, 2nd display being a 7" or 10" yet, sez Mitch (so their illustration of the new panel is therefore not necessarily accurate). And that proposed change led us to spend quite a bit of time at the Dynon booth (this mfgr. was previously unknown to us). I must say I was tremendously impressed with the guys, the demo'd capabilities of the units on display, the unmatched quality/clearity/brightness of the display itself, and their near-term plans for new features. Wow...

Jack

 

[daveyator]

end game is, are you looking for a 180 knot, cross country sport plane, or a light cruiser. only you can decide. I see the 12 as a totally different type of aeroplane to its 'big brothers'

 

[Jack Tyler]

"I see the 12 as a totally different type of aeroplane to its 'big brothers'."

To be sure. But the point of this thread is that one is choosing between those different models, and the choice is neither one-dimensional (e.g. speed) nor black & white (e.g. both models are now relatively easy to build, one is just much moreso). Many facets to the choice, as a pilot, a builder & a maintainer (and let's add, as a financier...), which is why exploring the motivations behind the choice is so helpful. At least to me...

Jack

 

[cbrown747]

I just got back from the sebring lsa expo and I saw an outfit who builds rv-9a and sells them as certified lsa aircraft. When I discussed with him how he can do this, he said they have reduced the weight of the aircraft to within the lsa limits. So I asked him how he can make the rv-9a with a 150hp engine go no faster than the limit of 138mph and he said simply, we put a red line on the airspeed indicator at 2000. In other words, it is appears to be a loop hole in the requirements. If this is all true and they can get away with it, then it would seem that anyone who lost their medical could still fly the rv-9a if they configured it like his.

By the way he also said the plane is structurely the same as vans. Of course I could not believe it when he said they are selling their completed conversions for $149,000.

 

[Sam Buchanan]

I just got back from the sebring lsa expo and I saw an outfit who builds rv-9a and sells them as certified lsa aircraft. When I discussed with him how he can do this, he said they have reduced the weight of the aircraft to within the lsa limits. So I asked him how he can make the rv-9a with a 150hp engine go no faster than the limit of 138mph and he said simply, we put a red line on the airspeed indicator at 2000. In other words, it is appears to be a loop hole in the requirements. If this is all true and they can get away with it, then it would seem that anyone who lost their medical could still fly the rv-9a if they configured it like his.

By the way he also said the plane is structurely the same as vans. Of course I could not believe it when he said they are selling their completed conversions for $149,000.

Keep in mind if an aircraft has ever been certificated in any category other than LSA, it can NEVER be brought back into LSA certification or standards.

 

[Peterk]

end game is, are you looking for a 180 knot, cross country sport plane, or a light cruiser. only you can decide. I see the 12 as a totally different type of aeroplane to its 'big brothers'

I think its important to remember that while the 12 is not a 180kt cross country sport plane, it is a 120 kt cross country plane. Many of us have already traveled the country comfortably. The only issues are speed (what's your hurry?), payload (50 lbs is more than enough) and fuel cost (5 gal/hr vrs maybe 11...oh and that's car gas). Climb high, turn on the auto pilot, plug in your IPod and enjoy the view)

 

[DonFromTX]

Very interesting indeed! There are ways around things and that person may have nailed another loophole. Sonex does that with their Jabaru 3300 170 mph LSA plane. Jabiru simply puts out the identical engine with a lower MAXIMUM CONTINOUS RPM RATING and bingo you go fast if you want to "overspeed" the engine. If you build an experimental engine, you can set your own max cont RPM limits for maximum continuous RPM, say 2000 rpm. Remember the LSA speed max is not a speed limit at which you can operate the plane, but one at SEA LEVEL AT MAX CONT RPM. Overspeed your engine and you can go fast all day long! Hmm, I wonder if I could squeeze in an IO360 beefed up a bit, make my max cont rpm about 1700, and have me a 200mph legal LSA? By golly I think I will try it!
Same on the max gross weight stuff, nobody usually checks if you happen to put on too much fuel and exceed your 1320 gross that you established when you got done with your E AB RV9. Never heard of a ramp check guy with portable scales, have you?

I just got back from the sebring lsa expo and I saw an outfit who builds rv-9a and sells them as certified lsa aircraft. When I discussed with him how he can do this, he said they have reduced the weight of the aircraft to within the lsa limits. So I asked him how he can make the rv-9a with a 150hp engine go no faster than the limit of 138mph and he said simply, we put a red line on the airspeed indicator at 2000. In other words, it is appears to be a loop hole in the requirements. If this is all true and they can get away with it, then it would seem that anyone who lost their medical could still fly the rv-9a if they configured it like his.

By the way he also said the plane is structurely the same as vans. Of course I could not believe it when he said they are selling their completed conversions for $149,000.

 

[Kyle Boatright]

I just got back from the sebring lsa expo and I saw an outfit who builds rv-9a and sells them as certified lsa aircraft. When I discussed with him how he can do this, he said they have reduced the weight of the aircraft to within the lsa limits. So I asked him how he can make the rv-9a with a 150hp engine go no faster than the limit of 138mph and he said simply, we put a red line on the airspeed indicator at 2000. In other words, it is appears to be a loop hole in the requirements. If this is all true and they can get away with it, then it would seem that anyone who lost their medical could still fly the rv-9a if they configured it like his.

By the way he also said the plane is structurely the same as vans. Of course I could not believe it when he said they are selling their completed conversions for $149,000.

Operations like this are the kind of thing that could put the LSA category under increased scrutiny. Not exactly a good thing. Same thing for pro-builders of experimental aircraft. One day there will be a noteworthy accident in an aircraft that wasn't done *the right way* and the entire house of cards could come tumbling down.

Ask the jet warbird owners about the ice cream parlor accident.

 

[David Paule]

Is an RV-12 Faster than an RV-9?

Maybe. Got time for some arithmetic? We'll add in the time to build and the time spent at fuel stops and see how it works out.

Let's say that it takes 1,100 hours to build an RV-12 and 2,500 to build an RV-9.

Let's say that they fly at the average of the two cruising speeds given on Van's website, or roughly at 65% power. The RV-12 cruises at 123.5 mph, and the RV-9 cruises at 178 mph. Looks pretty simple, doesn't it?

Let's say that you want to travel. Perhaps make trips that are 1,000 miles long. The RV-9 gets there in 5.62 hours and the RV-12 gets there in 8.1 hours. At about 8 gph, the RV-9 needs one fuel stop, while at 4.75 gph, the RV-12 needs two fuel stops. Probably the RV-12 can't make it in a day but the RV-9 can. The RV-12 fliers will need a motel and some meals. That adds, let's say, 14 hours to their trip time plus the fueling. We'll allocate 3/4 of an hour for a fuel stop.

With all these numbers in mind you can figure out that it takes 81 of these trips before the higher speed of the RV-9 saves you time compared to the RV-12.

If your trips were 500 miles long that would eliminate the overnight for the RV-12 crew, but it also eliminates the RV-9's fuel stop. It would take 933 trips before the RV-9 owners were saving time, compared to the RV-12.

Of course if you based your build choice on this sort of thing, it doesn't pay to build - you'd come out ahead simply buying a used airplane and it almost doesn't matter what.

Interesting, huh?

 

[diamond]

I think its important to remember that while the 12 is not a 180kt cross country sport plane, it is a 120 kt cross country plane. Many of us have already traveled the country comfortably. The only issues are speed (what's your hurry?), payload (50 lbs is more than enough) and fuel cost (5 gal/hr vrs maybe 11...oh and that's car gas). Climb high, turn on the auto pilot, plug in your IPod and enjoy the view)

I agree, in part. But I'd like to fly to Alaska and back once a year. Is the -12 suitable for that? With a range of 500 miles, would I even be able to find gas stops frequently enough on a relatively straight course? Not to mention the number of gas stops I'd have to make, it would take a while to get there. I could pack an extra tank, but then I couldn't take a passenger. So the range may be a limiting factor for me.

 

[Peterk]

RV-9 LSA

I don't see the RV-9 thing as a threat to LSA. Its no different than the people who build Carbon Cubs and limit their gross weight to 1320 when in fact in can carry much more. This is already a self-regulating avocation and there have always been plenty of people flying without medicals/or false applications and plenty of pencil-whipped annuals. As mentioned, all is well until that accident when the investigation reveals all the ammo for a liability lawsuit. I think anyone who wants to "bust" the limits won't go to all that effort...they'll just buy and fly a big/fast airplane and take their chances. Its kinda like drunk drivers...unless they put them in jail, nothing prevents them from getting in a car.

 

[Peterk]

I agree, in part. But I'd like to fly to Alaska and back once a year. Is the -12 suitable for that? With a range of 500 miles, would I even be able to find gas stops frequently enough on a relatively straight course? Not to mention the number of gas stops I'd have to make, it would take a while to get there. I could pack an extra tank, but then I couldn't take a passenger. So the range may be a limiting factor for me.

True dat! But if you follow the AlCan hwy there are airports all along the route. Your longest stretch would probably be 200 miles. Cubs have been flying that route for years. The nice thing about going to Alaska is if you go in the summertime, you don't have to worry about night flying...there isn't any night...lol Also, I fly Texas to Wyoming and regularly fly at the max altitude for favorable winds and the plane has no problem getting there

 

[Mich48041]

No scales are needed by the FAA

I saw an outfit who builds rv-9a and sells them as certified lsa aircraft.

Actually there is no such thing as a certified LSA aircraft. An aircraft can be registered as S-LSA or E-LSA but not as LSA. I have not heard of any company that sells an S-LSA RV-9A, so I assume that the RV-9A at Sebring is registered as E-AB. A builder of an E-AB aircraft can list the gross weight as 1320 so that it may be flown by a sport pilot without a medical. Now supposing that a sport pilot and his passenger go on a cross country flight. After landing, the FAA walks up and asks the pilot for his medical and weight and balance and registration. The plane weighs 1000 pounds empty. The combined weight of the pilot and passenger is obviously more than 320 pounds. So the aircraft is being operated at more than 1320 pounds, not even counting fuel. The FAA man notices that there is some baggage in the back too. The pilot is written up for not having a medical. And since the aircraft is obviously being operated over gross weight, the pilot is written up for reckless operation of an aircraft. No scales are needed by the FAA to see this obvious violation of the rules.
Joe

 

[DonFromTX]

I wonder how it would play in court.
"Weight of plane unknown, weight of occupants unknown, amount of fuel unknown, weight of baggage unknown, but I assumed the pilot was at fault for something or the other?".
Case dismissed!

 

[lucien]

I just got back from the sebring lsa expo and I saw an outfit who builds rv-9a and sells them as certified lsa aircraft. When I discussed with him how he can do this, he said they have reduced the weight of the aircraft to within the lsa limits. So I asked him how he can make the rv-9a with a 150hp engine go no faster than the limit of 138mph and he said simply, we put a red line on the airspeed indicator at 2000. In other words, it is appears to be a loop hole in the requirements. If this is all true and they can get away with it, then it would seem that anyone who lost their medical could still fly the rv-9a if they configured it like his.

By the way he also said the plane is structurely the same as vans. Of course I could not believe it when he said they are selling their completed conversions for $149,000.

Heh. Definitely sounds illegal to me. What type of A/W certification does it have?

As for the speed limits for LSA, there is no "loop hole". If it's capable of exceeding the LSA speed restrictions as spelled out in the rule, it ain't no LSA . End of story .

Back on topic of the 12, is the build manual available separately for looking at? I.e. can I order it from Vans to look it over to see what I'd be in for without having to make an additional financial commitment to get a kit off the bat? Seems like last time I looked into this you couldn't get the manual without committing to a kit, just wondering if that's still the case?

Like I said, I'd like to look at it, or even just a portion of it, to see what the build process is like. If it's a Tab-A-into-Slot-B type of build, it may be within my capabilities. If it requires too much intelligence, that kind of knocks me out the running

LS

 

[DonFromTX]

Heh. Definitely sounds illegal to me. As for the speed limits for LSA, there is no "loop hole". If it's capable of exceeding the LSA speed restrictions as spelled out in the rule, it ain't no LSA . End of story .

That is not entirely correct. The ONLY speed restriction is speed at maximum continuous RATED rpm AT SEA LEVEL. Few people ever even fly at sea level, and there is no law saying you cannot exceed maximum continuous rated rpm for as long as you desire and the engine holds together.
The RV9 referred to is obviously E AB, and the builder decides what gross they wish it to be, and when they build an experimental engine, they decide the max cont RPM. Looks like a loophole to me if there ever was one!

 

[LittleJoeA]

Lucien,

I was able to download several sections of the drawings at the download section of the Van's site. All of the updated drawings are there. I also bought from Van's, at OshKosh, an information kit that contained several sections of drawings.

As a response to tab a into slot B, I have so far found this kit to be more like an old Heathkit than anything else. The instructions are complete, but require some study to understand. This forum helps with that. There are new skills to learn, but everything seems do-able.

As the guy jumping off the building said as he wizzed by the 5th floor, "so far, so good."

 

[lucien]

Very interesting indeed! There are ways around things and that person may have nailed another loophole. Sonex does that with their Jabaru 3300 170 mph LSA plane. Jabiru simply puts out the identical engine with a lower MAXIMUM CONTINOUS RPM RATING and bingo you go fast if you want to "overspeed" the engine. If you build an experimental engine, you can set your own max cont RPM limits for maximum continuous RPM, say 2000 rpm. Remember the LSA speed max is not a speed limit at which you can operate the plane, but one at SEA LEVEL AT MAX CONT RPM. Overspeed your engine and you can go fast all day long! Hmm, I wonder if I could squeeze in an IO360 beefed up a bit, make my max cont rpm about 1700, and have me a 200mph legal LSA? By golly I think I will try it!
Same on the max gross weight stuff, nobody usually checks if you happen to put on too much fuel and exceed your 1320 gross that you established when you got done with your E AB RV9. Never heard of a ramp check guy with portable scales, have you?

Just FWIW, Sonex states explicitly that they do NOT bend the rules on this with the 3300:

http://www.sonexaircraft.com/sportpilot/qualify.html

Like I said, there is no loophole here. The engine manufacturer sets the max continuous power RPM for it. And if the plane goes faster than the speed limit with that engine in it at that power setting, it doesn't fit into the LSA limitations period.

With an experimental engine, hmm... that _is_ a cool idea . You'd have to get it past the inspector somehow tho....

LS

 

[lucien]

That is not entirely correct. The ONLY speed restriction is speed at maximum continuous RATED rpm AT SEA LEVEL. Few people ever even fly at sea level, and there is no law saying you cannot exceed maximum continuous rated rpm for as long as you desire and the engine holds together.
The RV9 referred to is obviously E AB, and the builder decides what gross they wish it to be, and when they build an experimental engine, they decide the max cont RPM. Looks like a loophole to me if there ever was one!

Oops, already commented on this in another post.

But the point stands: you're stuck with whatever the factory rated max continuous rpm is for your engine. Your only choice to change it is to actually modify the engine or somehow get the manufacturer to agree to change it or something along those lines. And like I said, if the plane exceeds the limit with the engine being operated that way, you're screwed (legally anyway).

As for the RV9a instance, it sounds like the gross weight issue is the least of its legal problems. If it's an EAB and is being sold by a business venture fully built, that all by itself is jail-bait for both buyer and seller. That breaks probably every rule in the book for Amateur Built. And you can be sure FAA would take a really close look at the power ratings on the engine too as they're putting the cuffs on you for the AB reg. violations.

Can anyone say Guantanamo Bay?

I'd take my 150 large and run, not walk, as far away from that operation as I could!

LS

 

[lucien]

Lucien,

I was able to download several sections of the drawings at the download section of the Van's site. All of the updated drawings are there. I also bought from Van's, at OshKosh, an information kit that contained several sections of drawings.

As a response to tab a into slot B, I have so far found this kit to be more like an old Heathkit than anything else. The instructions are complete, but require some study to understand. This forum helps with that. There are new skills to learn, but everything seems do-able.

As the guy jumping off the building said as he wizzed by the 5th floor, "so far, so good."

Ok, thanks Joe. Never built a Heathkit, tho I've owned/operated a few and had good looks at their manuals, so that gives me a good idea.

At some point I just need to break down and go to Vans for an intro flight, etc. But I don't want to pester them with all that until I'm at a point where I could make a commitment if I wanted to, so I've had to put that off.

But if there's a no-cost-to-vans option for me to look at the manuals in the meanwhile, that'd be my preference....

LS

 

[Tony_T]

At some point I just need to break down and go to Vans for an intro flight, etc. But I don't want to pester them with all that until I'm at a point where I could make a commitment if I wanted to, so I've had to put that off.

But if there's a no-cost-to-vans option for me to look at the manuals in the meanwhile, that'd be my preference....

LS

Lucien,
Have you looked carefully at what is available on Van's RV-12 Notices and Revisions pages : here ?
There are over 100 pages of the plans in Pdf format. All of Sec 46, Engine Installation, and all of Sec 28, Fuel System, are included. There are many pages from most of the other Sections, although not all. The Manual includes Sec 1,2,3 (tools required),4 (parts index), 5 (Construction methods and processes). Also the Maintenance Manual and the POH are there. Unless I were building the plane on a daily basis, I don't think I could digest all of the information that is currently available on the website .

There would appear to be enough there to give a very good review of what is involved, so one could decide to make or not make a commitment.

 

[David Paule]

RV-12 Plans

Also, if you wish, you can buy a set of the RV-12 plans from Van's. Last summer their price was $221 for the set.

But Tony's right, the downloadable plans revisions give a very good idea of the nature of the airplane and its construction.

Dave

 

[Mel]

Not Really....

With an experimental engine, hmm... that _is_ a cool idea . You'd have to get it past the inspector somehow tho....

LS

You're talking about an experimental amateur-built airplane, The inspector doesn't care how fast it goes. It's up to you, the operator, to show LSA compliance if confronted.

 

[lucien]

Lucien,
Have you looked carefully at what is available on Van's RV-12 Notices and Revisions pages : here ?
There are over 100 pages of the plans in Pdf format. All of Sec 46, Engine Installation, and all of Sec 28, Fuel System, are included. There are many pages from most of the other Sections, although not all. The Manual includes Sec 1,2,3 (tools required),4 (parts index), 5 (Construction methods and processes). Also the Maintenance Manual and the POH are there. Unless I were building the plane on a daily basis, I don't think I could digest all of the information that is currently available on the website .

There would appear to be enough there to give a very good review of what is involved, so one could decide to make or not make a commitment.

Ah, excellent, no I didn't see all this. This should help a lot.

Thanks,
LS